The idea has been raised before - in relation to our foreign policy and our economic reliance on the US.

No wonder then that the 10 Downing Street spokesman said this morning that “we were the fastest growing country in the US last year”…..before correcting himself…..”sorry, the G7″.

At the same time, Gordon Brown watchers are likely to have a field day this week as they watch the prime minister on a crucial trip to New York and Washington. The body language with “Dubya” has not seemed great, as seen in the picture below.

Meanwhile check out The Times on how the visit could be overshadowed by the pope.

Back in 1978, Argentina was preparing to host the World Cup. The fact that the military junta had by then purged the nation of thousands of dissidents and that one of the biggest torture and death camps was a few hundreds yards away from the River Plate stadium mattered not a jot to FIFA, the world governing body, the participating nations, and the fans.

But thirty years on, China has a problem on its hands, unless it smartens up its human rights image. When you have global internet, and rolling 24-hour satellite TV, the phrase, the “whole world’s watching you” takes on a different meaning.

It forces participitants to examine their consciences, and turns ‘Absolutely Fabulous’ actress Joanna Lumley into a sure candidate for the first female Archbishop of Canterbury.

Fresh from delivering her flowers at Prince Philip’s sick-bed, the gorgeous Joanna told the world, care of the BBC, that through the ages light can have the power to break through the darkness. The Olympic torch, she told us, is already working in mysterious ways, as it makes its progress through the world, shining a light on China’s human rights record.

As the FT exclusively revealed last week, the Chinese have enlisted the support of a PR company to limit the damage to its reputation of its brutal record in Tibet and elsewhere.

They should get a simple world of advice. Start loosening the political straitjacket, and engage constructively with the Dalai Lama, while reminding the world of China’s status as a major political and economic power-one the world cannot afford to boycott.

There is a startling statement buried near the end of this NY Times report about Nuri al-Maliki’s ill fated offensive in Basra:

the Iraqis did not trust the British and were not including them in their planning, according to a senior American officer.

From what British officials tell me, the lack of trust is mutual (and that is putting it politely).

Of all the presidential candidates, John McCain certainly has the biggest differences with Gordon Brown over how to handle Basra. Over at the Spectator Coffee House, James Forsyth has picked up some “straight talk” on British efforts to bring order to Iraq’s second biggest city. McCain says the British failed to counter the Iranians as they “moved into Southern Iraq”. “These are the penalties we continue to pay for the very bad mishandling of the war for nearly four years while they became solidly entrenched,” he added.

This reminded me of some of McCain’s more explicit criticisms of the British withdrawal plans. In February, he told reporters that he “did not think it was a good idea” for the British to draw down troops last year.

He softened the blow at the time with some warm remarks about the British commitment. (”I understand the British domestic situation and I very much appreciate the service and sacrifice the British military made in Iraq…Obviously we’d have liked to see them stay longer but the enormous contribution they made in Iraq and Afghanistan I have to just be grateful for.”)

But I expect this would have given little comfort to British officials wary of his ambitions in Iraq should he be elected president.  Would McCain request that the British take part in a Basra “surge”? And would he embarrass Gordon Brown by sending US troops to Basra if the prime minister said no?

Gordon Brown’s promise to outline his "vision" for Britain after scrapping plans for a 2007 election has raised expectations whenever he makes a new speech and provokes the inevitable question: "Is this it?"

Anyone hoping for a new foreign policy vision in Mr Brown’s speech to the Lord Mayor’s banquet in the City on Monday night is likely to have been disappointed.

"My approach is hard-headed internationalism," Mr Brown said. As opposed to what? "Internationalist because global challenges need global solutions." Hardly original. Reading the substance, Mr Brown’s foreign policy approach sounds rather like that pursued by Tony Blair.

There is a tough (US-friendly) line on Iran. There are warm words about the US ("our most important bilateral relationship"). Mr Brown criticises President Musharraf of Pakistan - a key Washington ally - for imposing martial law, but holds back from calling for Pakistan to be suspended from the Commonwealth.

The speech is a lacklustre affair, which will only add to speculation in the Foreign Office that Mr Brown is not focused on - or especially interested in - foreign policy. For a landmark speech, it has none of the passion or verve of Mr Brown’s recent speeches on liberty or education.

What it does contain is further evidence of Mr Brown’s belief that reformed global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and UN Security Council hold the key to solving the international problems he identifies. He dwells on these reforms at length.

But characteristically only a short part of the speech is devoted to Europe, perhaps the most effective multi-lateral organisation in the world - through which Britain can leverage its influence on issues like climate change, trade and security.

Mr Brown has a golden opportunity to lead in Europe along with likeminded allies like Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel but so far shows little inclination to get stuck in.

With the unratified EU treaty hanging over him until at least the middle of 2008, Mr Brown seems to have Europe locked up in a box marked: "Toxic: open at your peril."

If he is serious about developing a global policy, he should look beyond reforming unwieldy bodies like the UN and IMF - worthy though that cause might be - and start using the tools he already has at his disposal.

The EU is the world’s biggest and richest trading bloc. It is being copied in Africa, South America and South East Asia as a model for small countries hoping to shape globalisation. And it is a multi-lateral organisation which, in spite of its flaws, already works. He should grab the steering wheel.